Clinical research of peri-implant diseases - quality of reporting, case definitions and methods to study incidence, prevalence and risk factors of peri-implant diseases (original) (raw)
Related papers
2020
AimTo evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri-implantitis.Materials and Methods240 randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history was collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri-implantitis defined as BoP/SoP and bone levels ≧2 mm.Results99 patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalence of preperiimplantitis and of peri-implantitis were respectively 56.6% and 31.3% at patient-level, while 27.9% and 31.7% at implant-level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for periimplantitis: smoking (OR = 3.59; 95%CI:1.52–8.45), moderate/se...
Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2008
Background: Peri-implant diseases include peri-implant mucositis, describing an inflammatory lesion of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implantitis, which also includes loss of supporting bone. Methods: A literature search of the Medline database (Ovid), up to 21 January 2008 was carried out using a systematic approach, in order to review the evidence for diagnosis and the risk indicators for peri-implant diseases. Results: Experimental and clinical studies have identified various diagnostic criteria including probing parameters, radiographic assessment and peri-implant crevicular fluid and saliva analyses. Cross-sectional analyses have investigated potential risk indicators for peri-implant disease including poor oral hygiene, smoking, history of periodontitis, diabetes, genetic traits, alcohol consumption and implant surface. There is evidence that probing using a light force (0.25 N) does not damage the peri-implant tissues and that bleeding on probing (BOP) indicates presence of inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa. The probing depth, the presence of BOP, and suppuration should be assessed regularly for the diagnosis of peri-implant diseases. Radiographs are required to evaluate supporting bone levels around implants. The review identified strong evidence that poor oral hygiene, a history of periodontitis and cigarette smoking, are risk indicators for peri-implant disease. Future prospective studies are required to confirm these factors as true risk factors.
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
Objectives: To study the symptoms and perception reported by patients with peri-implant diseases, as well as their signs and their potential impact on the oral health quality of life. Materials and Methods: 240 randomly selected patients were invited to participate. As part of the history assessment, the patient OHIP-14Sp was evaluated together with, for each implant, the patient perception regarding the peri-implant health status and the history of pain, spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, suppuration, swelling and discomfort during brushing. As part of the clinical examination, the following potential signs of peri-implant diseases were collected: probing pocket depth (PPD), mucosal dehiscence (MD), extent of BoP, presence of SoP, and visual signs of redness and swelling. Those parameters were analyzed in relation to the actual peri-implant health diagnosis. Results: 99 patients with a total of 458 dental implants were studied. Even in case of periimplantitis, 88.9% of the implants were perceived by the patients as healthy. The total OHIP-14Sp sum score did not differ in relation to the peri-implant health diagnosis. Increased reports of spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, swelling and discomfort during brushing were observed in presence of disease. However, only a minor proportion of implants with peri-implant diseases presented symptoms. PPD≥6 mm was more frequent in diseased than in healthy implants(p<0.01), while PPD≥8 in pre-periimplantitis/peri-implantitis than in healthy/mucositis implants(p<0.01). Implants with peri-implantitis showed higher MD than implants without peri-implantitis(p<0.01). Conclusion: Peri-implant diseases are in most cases asymptomatic and not perceived by the patients. Despite being unable to accurately discriminate between peri-implant mucositis and periimplantitis, PPD and MD resulted as the only two clinical signs associated with preperiimplantitis/peri-implantitis.
STOMATOLOGY EDU JOURNAL, 2016
Background: A variety of factors (local and systemic) have been associated with the etiology of periimplant diseases. Objective: The aim was to provide an overview of current literature regarding the local risk-factors associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Data sources: Indexed databases were searched till June 2016 using different combinations of the following key words: "bruxism"; "oral biofilm"; "peri-implant diseases"; "peri-implantitis", "riskfactors" and "smoking". Study selection: Clinical studies assessing the local risk-factors associated with the etiology of periimplantitis were included. Letters to the Editor, case-reports, case-series, in-vitro studies, studies on animal models and commentaries were excluded. Data extraction: The pattern of the present comprehensive review was customized to primarily summarize the pertinent information. Data synthesis: Poor bone density and volume are associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Excessive plaque accumulation and history of periodontitis are core etiological factors associated with peri-implant diseases. The relative risk for peri-implantitis was significantly higher in patients with a previous history of periodontitis compared to peri-implantitis patients without a history of periodontal disease. Periodontopathogens associated with periodontitis have also been isolated from peri-implant sulci of patients with peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis is most often manifested in patients with bruxism and tobacco smoking habit. Other factors associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases include presence of cement excess and operator's clinical experience. Bone quality and quantity, poor oral hygiene, smoking, bruxism, occlusal overloading, history of periodontitis and operator's experience are common local factors associated peri-implant diseases.
Current Status of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Clinical Review for Evidence-Based Decision Making
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Background: the prevalence of peri-implant diseases is constantly growing, particularly with the increasing use of dental implants. As such, achieving healthy peri-implant tissues has become a key challenge in implant dentistry since it considers the optimal success paradigm. This narrative review aims to highlight the current concepts regarding the disease and summarize the available evidence on treatment approaches clarifying their indications for usage following the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (2017). Methods: we reviewed the recent literature and conducted a narrative synthesis of the available evidence on peri-implant diseases. Results: scientific evidence on case definitions, epidemiology, risk factors, microbiological profile, prevention, and treatment approaches for peri-implant diseases were summarized and reported. Conclusions: although there are numerous protocols for managing peri-implant diseases, they are diverse and no...
Peri-implantitis risk factors: A prospective evaluation
Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 2019
Aim: The aim of the present study was to create a tool to evaluate the risk of periimplantitis according its severity. Methods: After ethics committee approval, 43 patients provided signed consent and were included prospectively. Forty-five observations were recorded. The following criteria were recorded: number of implant faces showing bleeding and/or suppuration, pocket depth on at least two faces of the implant, bone loss as a function of the length of the implant evaluated on X-rays, number of implant faces with bacterial plaque, the parameters required for determination of excess cement (screwed or sealed prosthesis, burying of sealed prostheses), periodontal status, glycemia, and annual consumption of tobacco. Each of these parameters was plotted on a chart using Microsoft Excel. Results: Seventeen of 45 (37.8%) cases were identified as having high peri-implantitis risk, two of 45 (4.4%) had low risk, and 11 of 45 (24.4%) had moderate risk; 33.3% patients did not have peri-implantitis and were considered at very low risk. Conclusion: The observed results applied to the evaluation model are an effective diagnostic tool in assessing the risk of peri-implantitis. The tool takes into account parameters, which have not been taken into account until now. The information is automatically processed and allows early management of peri-implantitis.